brian_dromey
19th Nov 2006, 19:35
It is a somewhat interesting fact that different alliances have so many variations of carriers. Some go for a large number of small(er) carriers while others go for a small number of larg(er) carriers. My question is which approach works best? Or does it depend on how closely the members work with one another, regardless of size of the alliance.
Star - the largest carriers are still the original five, but many more smaller, perticuarly of the LH and SAS groups have joined. Do these smaller carriers actually contribute much to the overall alliance? Sometimes it seems like anyone can join Star, is there any long term goal, other than to have more airlines than everyone else?
oneworld - Seems to favour having one/two major carriers in each region, all of whom seem to work quite closely together, and have a lare presence in their regions. eg BA/AA, IB/BA, LAN/AA, etc. Although there are fewer airlines does this work any better or worse than anyone else.
SkyTeam - Again, usually fewer, but larger carriers, the exception being in the US(DL, CO and NW). (Then again NW was "forced" to join, when KL did as part of the AF merger).
To me, as a passenger booking flights, oneword and skyTeam seem the better two alliances because AA/BA/QF work very closely together and NW/KL ARE close, as are KL/AF/AZ. CSA and AF seem to work together aswell.
Perhaps I am mistaken however and the Star approch of more carriers who are strong in their small regions(eg Air New Zealand, Spanair, TAP) is better?
Star - the largest carriers are still the original five, but many more smaller, perticuarly of the LH and SAS groups have joined. Do these smaller carriers actually contribute much to the overall alliance? Sometimes it seems like anyone can join Star, is there any long term goal, other than to have more airlines than everyone else?
oneworld - Seems to favour having one/two major carriers in each region, all of whom seem to work quite closely together, and have a lare presence in their regions. eg BA/AA, IB/BA, LAN/AA, etc. Although there are fewer airlines does this work any better or worse than anyone else.
SkyTeam - Again, usually fewer, but larger carriers, the exception being in the US(DL, CO and NW). (Then again NW was "forced" to join, when KL did as part of the AF merger).
To me, as a passenger booking flights, oneword and skyTeam seem the better two alliances because AA/BA/QF work very closely together and NW/KL ARE close, as are KL/AF/AZ. CSA and AF seem to work together aswell.
Perhaps I am mistaken however and the Star approch of more carriers who are strong in their small regions(eg Air New Zealand, Spanair, TAP) is better?